https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87741 Duty-free exemption as replenishment under Notification No. 117/88 had to be strictly proved by the claimant, and the importer failed to show that the imported flocked velvet fabric was actually used in the manufacture of the exported garments; mere purchase of similar fabric was insufficient, so the exemption claim failed. On valuation, contemporaneous imports described only in general terms as velvet fabrics did not provide reliable evidence that the goods were identical or similar in technical characteristics, quality or specification, so the declared transaction value could not be rejected on the material available. As the undervaluation allegation failed, the related confiscation and penalty based on misdeclaration of value also could not survive. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Sep 2011 10:40:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87741 Duty-free exemption as replenishment under Notification No. 117/88 had to be strictly proved by the claimant, and the importer failed to show that the imported flocked velvet fabric was actually used in the manufacture of the exported garments; mere purchase of similar fabric was insufficient, so the exemption claim failed. On valuation, contemporaneous imports described only in general terms as velvet fabrics did not provide reliable evidence that the goods were identical or similar in technical characteristics, quality or specification, so the declared transaction value could not be rejected on the material available. As the undervaluation allegation failed, the related confiscation and penalty based on misdeclaration of value also could not survive. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87741